header-logo header-logo

10 May 2018
Issue: 7792 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Peers inflict pain on May’s Bill

The government has suffered its 14th defeat in the House of Lords on the Brexit Bill after Peers voted for the UK to remain in the Single Market.

Peers voted 245-218 for the cross-party amendment, brought by Labour’s Lord Ali, for the UK to negotiate continued membership of the Single Market (European Economic Area) with 83 Labour Peers defying the whip to do so.

Peers also voted in favour of a cross-party amendment to remove the 29 March 2019 departure date from the EU Withdrawal Bill. The Duke of Wellington, who proposed the amendment, said it gave the House of Commons ‘an opportunity to think again’, although he said any extension would be limited to a few weeks since the European Parliament elections take place on 23 May 2019.

The Lords backed an amendment specifying that the UK can replicate in domestic law any EU law made on or after exit day and can continue to take part in EU agencies. And they voted in favour of giving the Lords powers to refer statutory instruments back to the House of Commons.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords’ EU Justice Sub-Committee, led by Helena Kennedy QC, has issued a stark warning on the consequences of leaving the EU without effective dispute resolution systems in place.

In a report published last week, Dispute resolution and enforcement after Brexit, it warned that disagreements with the EU could be ‘potentially insoluble’ and individuals and businesses left without any ability to protect and enforce their rights. Moreover, without the jurisdiction of the CJEU, the government would have to agree multiple dispute resolution procedures.

Baroness Kennedy said: ‘We are really worried now about the lack of time.

‘This is difficult stuff, and unless both sides show real flexibility in the coming months, not only could the rights of businesses and individuals be threatened, but the whole Brexit withdrawal agreement could end up being potentially unenforceable.’

 

Issue: 7792 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
back-to-top-scroll